SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Prospects and Disadvantages of Intraoperative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and limitations of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) across different cancer types, with a focus on breast and head and neck cancers. The aim was to compare IORT with other radiotherapy techniques and assess its benefits and drawbacks in oncological settings.
methodsEligibility criteria included clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews involving at least 15 participants, focusing on the efficacy and safety of IORT in comparison to other radiotherapy methods. The literature search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases using predefined keywords. A total of 60 studies were initially identified, with 44 meeting the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using standardized tools, including the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized studies. A qualitative synthesis was performed, integrating data on local control (LC), overall survival (OS), recurrence rates, and treatment-related complications.
resultsOf the 60 studies identified, 46 were included in the final analysis. These studies focused on various cancers, with a particular emphasis on breast cancer and head and neck cancer. The synthesis revealed that IORT offers several benefits, such as reduced treatment time and better local control in specific patient populations. However, there were inconsistencies in outcomes depending on the radiation technique used, and long-term follow-up data were often lacking.
conclusionThe evidence is limited by study heterogeneity, potential bias, and the absence of long-term data in some cases. While IORT demonstrates promising results, particularly in terms of reducing treatment duration and preserving healthy tissue, further high-quality studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base and clarify the long-term outcomes of IORT in different oncological settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.